PARASHRAM @ PURSHOTTAM JETHANAND THAKUR Vs. RAMBAI S. GAIKWAD
LAWS(BOM)-2017-10-88
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on October 12,2017

Parashram @ Purshottam Jethanand Thakur Appellant
VERSUS
Rambai S. Gaikwad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioner/original defendant who suffers an eviction decree dated 7 December 1990 in Regular Civil Suit No. 589 of 1986 decided by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik as confirmed by the learned Second Extra Joint District Judge, Nashik, dismissing the petitioners appeal by the impugned judgment dated 25 June 1996, is before this Court in the present proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution, being aggrieved by the concurrent finding of the courts below.
(2.) In nutshell the facts are: The petitioner's father Parashram alias Purshottam Jethanand Thakur was the tenant of the premises being Shop No. 4, Municipal House No. 12/173 situated at Ambedkar Road, within the municipal limits of Nashik Municipal Corporation (for short ' the suit premises'). The petitioners father expired during the pendency of this appeal. The petitioners are legal heirs of deceased Parsharam who are pursuing this petition. For convenience the parties are referred as petitioner and the respondent as they originally stood when this petition was filed. The respondent is the landlady. The suit premises were let out by the respondent to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- per month excluding the facility of electricity and water, with permitted increases. The petitioner conducts business of a photo studio in the suit premises.
(3.) The respondent filed the suit in question against the petitioner (Regular Civil Suit No. 589 of 1986) praying for decree of ejectment and possession on two grounds available under Section 13 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'the Bombay Rent Act') firstly that the petitioner had defaulted in payment of rent from the year 1984 and the permitted increases. The rent was due and payable from 1984 upto June,1986 which despite several demands, was not paid by the petitioner to the respondent. The second ground was of the petitioner constructing illegal structure in the open space of the suit property without the consent of the respondent. The construction was of a shed by installing iron poles surrounding iron mesh as described in the plaint. The respondent claimed that the petitioner deserved to be evicted on the said breaches of the petitioner.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.